Systems-level dynamic analyses of fate change in murine embryonic stem cells

Nature

Volumn 462, Issue 7271, 2009, Pages 358-362

  Lu, Rong ^a,e   Markowetz, Florian ^a,f   Unwin, Richard D ^b   Leek, Jeffrey T ^c,g   Airoldi, Edoardo M ^a,h   MacArthur, Ben D ^c   Lachmann, Alexander ^c   Rozov, Roye ^c,i   Maayan, Avi ^c   Boyer, Laurie A ^d   Troyanskaya, Olga G ^a   Whetton, Anthony D ^b   Lemischka, Ihor R ^a,c  

^a Princeton University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^e STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f IMPERIAL CANCER RESEARCH FUND   (United Kingdom)

^g JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^h HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MESSENGER RNA; NUCLEAR PROTEIN; OCTAMER TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 4; RNA POLYMERASE II; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR NANOG; TRANSCRIPTOME;

ENZYME ACTIVITY; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC ENGINEERING; RNA;

ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CHROMATIN IMMUNOPRECIPITATION; EMBRYO; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; ENZYME LOCALIZATION; EPIGENETICS; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; GENOME; LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; RNA TRANSLATION;

ANIMALS; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; EPIGENESIS, GENETIC; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION, DEVELOPMENTAL; MICE; PROTEOME; TIME FACTORS;

MURINAE;

EID: 70450160004     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: 14764687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature08575     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bernstein, B. E. et al. A bivalent chromatin structure marks key developmental genes in embryonic stem cells. Cell 125, 315-326 (2006).
2. Boyer, L. A. et al. Polycomb complexes repress developmental regulators in murine embryonic stem cells. Nature 441, 349-353 (2006).
3. Mikkelsen, T. S. et al. Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 448, 553-560 (2007).
4. Meissner, A. et al. Genome-scale DNA methylation maps of pluripotent and differentiated cells. Nature 454, 766-770 (2008).
5. Boyer, L. A. et al. Core transcriptional regulatory circuitry in human embryonic stem cells. Cell 122, 947-956 (2005).
6. Loh, Y. H. et al. The Oct4 and Nanog transcription network regulates pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nature Genet. 38, 431-440 (2006).
7. Ivanova, N. et al. Dissecting self-renewal in stem cells with RNA interference. Nature 442, 533-538 (2006).
8. Kim, J., Chu, J., Shen, X., Wang, J. & Orkin, S. H. An extended transcriptional network for pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Cell 132, 1049-1061 (2008).
9. Chickarmane, V. & Peterson, C. A computational model for understanding stem cell, trophectoderm and endoderm lineage determination. PLoS One 3, e3478 (2008).
10. Ying, Q. L. et al. The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nature 453, 519-523 (2008).
11. Sampath, P. et al. A hierarchical network controls protein translation during murine embryonic stem cell self-renewal and differentiation. Cell Stem Cell 2, 448-460 (2008).
12. Chang, W. Y. & Stanford, W. L. Translational control: a new dimension in embryonic stem cell network analysis. Cell Stem Cell 2, 410-412 (2008).
13. Chambers, I. et al. Functional expression cloning of Nanog, a pluripotency sustaining factor in embryonic stem cells. Cell 113, 643-655 (2003).
14. Mitsui, K. et al. The homeoprotein Nanog is required for maintenance of pluripotency in mouse epiblast and ES cells. Cell 113, 631-642 (2003).
15. Chambers, I. et al. Nanog safeguards pluripotency and mediates germline development. Nature 450, 1230-1234 (2007).
16. Unwin, R. D. et al. Quantitative proteomics reveals posttranslational control as a regulatory factor in primary hematopoietic stem cells. Blood 107, 4687-4694 (2006).
17. Spooncer, E. et al. Developmental fate determination and marker discovery in hematopoietic stem cell biology using proteomic fingerprinting. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 7, 573-581 (2008).
18. van den Berg, D. L. et al. Estrogen-related receptor b interacts with Oct4 to positively regulate Nanog gene expression. Mol. Cell. Biol. 28, 5986-5995 (2008).
19. Tay, Y., Zhang, J., Thomson, A. M., Lim, B. & Rigoutsos, I. MicroRNAs to Nanog, Oct4 and Sox2 coding regions modulate embryonic stem cell differentiation. Nature 455, 1124-1128 (2008).
20. Marson, A. et al. Connecting microRNA genes to the core transcriptional regulatory circuitry of embryonic stem cells. Cell 134, 521-533 (2008).
21. Bonifer, C., Hoogenkamp, M., Krysinska, H. & Tagoh, H. How transcription factors program chromatin-lessons from studies of the regulation of myeloid-specific genes. Semin. Immunol. 20, 257-263 (2008).
22. Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663-676 (2006).
23. Okita, K., Ichisaka, T. & Yamanaka, S. Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 448, 313-317 (2007).
24. Wang, J. et al. A protein interaction network for pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Nature 444, 364-368 (2006).
25. Macarthur, B. D., Ma'ayan, A. & Lemischka, I. R. Systems biology of stem cell fate and cellular reprogramming. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 672-681 (2009).
26. Graf, T. & Stadtfeld, M. Heterogeneity of embryonic and adult stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 3, 480-483 (2008).
27. Dietrich, J. E. & Hiiragi, T. Stochastic patterning in the mouse pre-implantation embryo. Development 134, 4219-4231 (2007).
28. Singh, A. M., Hamazaki, T., Hankowski, K. E. & Terada, N. A heterogeneous expression pattern for Nanog in embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells 25, 2534-2542 (2007).
29. Kalmar, T. et al. Regulated fluctuations in Nanog expression mediate cell fate decisions in embryonic stem cells. PLoS Biol. 7, e1000149 (2009).
30. Airoldi, E. M. Getting started in probabilistic graphical models. PLOS Comput. Biol. 3, e252 (2007).
31. Liu, C. L., Schreiber, S. L. & Bernstein, B. E. Development and validation of a T7 based linear amplification for genomic DNA. BMC Genomics 4, 19 (2003)
32. Kislinger, T. etal.Global survey of organ and organelle protein expression in mouse: combined proteomic and transcriptomic profiling. Cell 125, 173-186 (2006).
33. Ritchie, M. E. et al. A comparison of background correction methods for two-colour microarrays. Bioinformatics 23, 2700-2707 (2007).
34. Yang, Y. H. et al. Normalization for cDNA microarray data: a robust composite method addressing single and multiple slide systematic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, e15 (2002).
35. Smyth, G. K. Linear models and empirical bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 3, Article3 (2004).
36. Benjamini, Y., Drai, D., Elmer, G., Kafkafi, N. & Golani, I. Controlling the false discovery rate in behavior genetics research. Behav. Brain Res. 125, 279-284 (2001).
37. Eichler, G. S., Huang, S. & Ingber, D. E. Gene Expression Dynamics Inspector (GEDI): for integrative analysis of expression profiles. Bioinformatics 19, 2321-2322 (2003